Vance E. Knudson, Sui Juris
Citizen of Nebraska state
c/o General Delivery
Hastings [zip code exempt]
NEBRASKA STATE
In Propria Persona
All Rights Reserved
without prejudice
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic], ) Case No. 4:CV96-3275
)
Plaintiff [sic], ) NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR
) MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE:
v. )
) Rule 201(d),
VANCE E. KNUDSON [sic], ) Federal Rules of Evidence;
) Full Faith and Credit Clause
Defendant [sic]. )
________________________________)
COMES NOW Vance E. Knudson, Sui Juris, Citizen of Nebraska state,
expressly not a citizen of the United States ("federal citizen"),
and Defendant in the above entitled matter (hereinafter
"Defendant"), to provide formal Notice to all interested parties,
and to demand mandatory judicial notice by this honorable Court,
pursuant to Rule 201(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence and to
the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the Constitution for the
United States of America, as lawfully amended, of an excerpt from
the opinion of the Utah Supreme Court in the case of Dyett v.
Turner, 439 P.2d 266, 270 (1968), reciting irrefutable historical
details proving that the so-called 14th amendment was never
lawfully ratified. Said excerpt is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein, to wit:
Ninth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice: Page 1 of
8
General Lee had surrendered his army on April 9, 1865, and
General Johnston surrendered his 17 days later. Within a period
of less than six weeks thereafter, not one Confederate soldier
was bearing arms. By June 30, 1865, the Confederate states were
all restored by presidential proclamation to their proper
positions as states in an indissoluble union,(1) and practically
all citizens thereof(2) had been granted amnesty. Immediately
thereafter each of the seceding states functioned as regular
states in the Union with both state and federal courts in full
operation.
President Lincoln had declared the freedom of the slaves as
a war measure, but when the war ended, the effect of the
proclamation was ended, and so it was necessary to propose and to
ratify the Thirteenth Amendment in order to insure the freedom of
the slaves.
The 11 southern states having taken their rightful and
necessary place in the indestructible Union proceeded to
determine whether to ratify or reject the proposed Thirteenth
Amendment. In order to become a part of the Constitution, it was
necessary that the proposed amendment be ratified by 27 of the 36
states. Among those 27 states ratifying the Thirteenth Amendment
were 10 from the South, to wit, Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas,
South Carolina, Alabama, North Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi,
Florida, and Texas.
When the 39th Congress assembled on December 5, 1865, the
senators and representatives from the 25 northern states voted to
deny seats in both houses of Congress to anyone elected from the
11 southern states. The full complement of senators from the 36
states of the Union was 72, and the full membership in the House
was 240. Since it requires only a majority vote (Article I,
Section 5, Constitution of the United States) to refuse a seat in
Congress, only the 50 senators and 182 congressmen from the North
were seated. All of the 22 senators and 58 representatives from
the southern states were denied seats.
Joint Resolution No. 48 proposing the Fourteenth Amendment
was a matter of great concern to the Congress and to the people
of the Nation. In order to have this proposed amendment submitted
to the 36 states for ratification, it was necessary that two
thirds of each house concur. A count of noses showed that only 33
senators were favorable to the measure, and 33 was a far cry from
two thirds of 72 and lacked one of being two thirds of the 50
seated senators.
While it requires only a majority of votes to refuse a seat
to a senator, it requires a two thirds majority to unseat a
member once he is seated. (Article 1, Section 5, Constitution of
the United States) One John P. Stockton was seated on December 5,
1865, as one of the senators from New Jersey. He was outspoken in
his opposition to Joint Resolution No. 48 proposing the
Fourteenth Amendment. The leadership in the Senate not having
control of two thirds of the seated senators voted to refuse to
seat Mr. Stockton upon the ground that he had received only a
plurality and not a majority of the votes of the New Jersey
Ninth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice: Page 2 of
8
legislature. It was the law of New Jersey and several other
states that a plurality vote was sufficient for election.
Besides, the Senator had already been seated. Nevertheless, his
seat was refused, and the 33 favorable votes thus became the
required two thirds of the 49 members of the Senate.
In the House of Representatives it would require 122 votes
to be two thirds of the 182 members seated. Only 120 voted for
the proposed amendment, but because there were 30 abstentions it
was declared to have been passed by a two thirds vote of the
House.
Whether it requires two thirds of the full membership of
both houses to propose an amendment to the Constitution or only
two thirds of those seated or two thirds of those voting is a
question which it would seem could only be determined by the
United States Supreme Court. However, it is perhaps not so
important for the reason that the amendment is only proposed by
Congress. It must be ratified by three fourths of the states in
the Union before it becomes a part of the Constitution. The
method of securing the passage through Congress is set out above,
as it throws some light on the means used to obtain ratification
by the states thereafter.
Nebraska had been admitted to the Union, and so the
Secretary of State in transmitting the proposed amendment
announced that ratification by 28 states would be needed before
the amendment would become part of the Constitution, since there
were at the time 37 states in the Union. A rejection by 10 states
would thus defeat the proposal.
By March 17, 1867, the proposed amendment had been ratified
by 17 states and rejected by 10, with California voting to take
no action thereon, which was equivalent to rejection. Thus the
proposal was defeated.
One of the ratifying states, Oregon, had ratified by a
membership wherein two legislators were subsequently held not to
be duly elected, and after the contest the duly elected members
of the legislature of Oregon rejected the proposed amendment.
However, this rejection came after the amendment was declared
passed.
Despite the fact that the southern states had been
functioning peacefully for two years and had been counted to
secure ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, Congress passed
the Reconstruction Act, which provided for the military
occupation of 10 of the 11 southern states. It excluded Tennessee
from military occupation, and one must suspect it was because
Tennessee had ratified the Fourteenth Amendment on July 7, 1866.
The Act further disfranchised practically all white voters and
provided that no senator or congressman from the occupied states
could be seated in Congress until a new constitution was adopted
by each state which would be approved by Congress, and further
provided that each of the 10 states must ratify the proposed
Fourteenth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment must become a
part of the Constitution of the United States before the military
occupancy would cease and the states be allowed to have seats in
Congress.
Ninth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice: Page 3 of
8
By the time the Reconstruction Act had been declared to be
the law, three more states had ratified the proposed Fourteenth
Amendment, and two -- Louisiana and Delaware -- had rejected it.
Then Maryland withdrew its prior ratification and rejected the
proposed Fourteenth Amendment. Ohio followed suit and withdrew
its prior ratification, as also did New Jersey. California, which
earlier had voted not to pass upon the proposal, now voted to
reject the amendment. Thus 16 of the 37 states had rejected the
proposed amendment.
By spurious, nonrepresentative governments seven of the
southern states which had theretofore rejected the proposed
amendment under the duress of military occupation and of being
denied representation in Congress did attempt to ratify the
proposed Fourteenth Amendment. The Secretary of State on July 20,
1868, issued his proclamation wherein he stated that it was his
duty under the law to cause amendments to be published and
certified as a part of the Constitution when he received official
notice that they had been adopted pursuant to the Constitution.
Thereafter his certificate contained the following language:
And whereas neither the act just quoted from, nor any
other law, expressly or by conclusive implication,
authorizes the Secretary of State to determine and decide
doubtful questions as to the authenticity of the
organization of State legislatures, or as to the power of
any State legislature to recall a previous act or resolution
of ratification of any amendment proposed to the
Constitution;
And whereas it appears from official documents on file
in this Department that the amendment to the Constitution of
the United States, proposed as aforesaid, has been ratified
by the legislatures of the States of [naming 23, including
New Jersey, Ohio, and Oregon];
And whereas it further appears from documents on file
in this Department that the amendment to the Constitution of
the United States, proposed as aforesaid, has also been
ratified by newly constituted and newly established bodies
avowing themselves to be and acting as the legislatures,
respectively, of the States of Arkansas, Florida, North
Carolina, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama;
And whereas it further appears from official documents
on file in this Department that the legislatures of two of
the States first above enumerated, to wit, Ohio and New
Jersey, have since passed resolutions respectively
withdrawing the consent of each of said States to the
aforesaid amendment; and whereas it is deemed a matter of
doubt and uncertainty whether such resolutions are not
irregular, invalid, and therefore ineffectual for
withdrawing the consent of the said two States, or of either
of them, to the aforesaid amendment;
Ninth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice: Page 4 of
8
And whereas the whole number of States in the United
States is thirty-seven, to wit: [naming them];
And whereas the twenty-three States first hereinbefore
named, whose legislatures have ratified the said proposed
amendment, and the six States next thereafter named, as
having ratified the said proposed amendment by newly
constituted and established legislative bodies, together
constitute three fourths of the whole number of States in
the United States;
Now, therefore, be it known that I, WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
Secretary of State of the United States, by virtue and in
pursuant of the second section of the act of Congress,
approved the twentieth of April, eighteen hundred and
eighteen, hereinbefore cited, do hereby certify that if the
resolutions of the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey
ratifying the aforesaid amendment are to be deemed as
remaining of full force and effect, notwithstanding the
subsequent resolutions of the legislatures of those States,
which purport to withdraw the consent of said States from
such ratification, then the aforesaid amendment has been
ratified in the manner hereinbefore mentioned, and so has
become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the
Constitution of the United States.(3)
Congress was not satisfied with the proclamation as issued
and on the next day passed a concurrent resolution wherein it was
resolved "That said fourteenth article is hereby declared to be a
part of the Constitution of the United States, and it shall be
duly promulgated as such by the Secretary of State."(4)
Thereupon, William H. Seward, the Secretary of State, after
setting forth the concurrent resolution of both houses of
Congress, then certified that the amendment "has become valid to
all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution of the
United States."(5)
The Constitution of the United States is silent as to who
should decide whether a proposed amendment has or has not been
passed according to formal provisions of Article V of the
Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States is the
ultimate authority on the meaning of the Constitution and has
never hesitated in a proper case to declare an act of Congress
unconstitutional -- except when the act purported to amend the
Constitution.(6) The duty of the Secretary of State was
ministerial, to wit, to count and determine when three fourths of
the states had ratified the proposed amendment. He could not
determine that a state once having rejected a proposed amendment
could thereafter approve it, nor could he determine that a state
once having ratified that proposal could thereafter reject it.
The court and not Congress should determine such matters.
Consistency would seem to require that a vote once cast would be
final or would not be final, whether the first vote was for
ratification or rejection.
In order to have 27 states ratify the Fourteenth Amendment,
it was necessary to count those states which had first rejected
Ninth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice: Page 5 of
8
and then under the duress of military occupation had ratified,
and then also to count those states which initially ratified but
subsequently rejected the proposal.
To leave such dishonest counting to a fractional part of
Congress is dangerous in the extreme. What is to prevent any
political party having control of both houses of Congress from
refusing to seat the opposition and then without more passing a
joint resolution to the effect that the Constitution is amended
and that it is the duty of the Administrator of the General
Services Administration(7) to proclaim the adoption? Would the
Supreme Court of the United States still say the problem was
political and refuse to determine whether constitutional
standards had been met?
How can it be conceived in the minds of anyone that a
combination of powerful states can by force of arms deny another
state a right to have representation in Congress until it has
ratified an amendment which its people oppose? The Fourteenth
Amendment was adopted by means almost as bad as that suggested
above.(8)
...
OPINION FOOTNOTES
(1) 13 Stat. 760, 763, 764, 765, 767, 768, 769, 771 (1865).
(2) 13 Stat. 758 (1865). A few citizens were excepted from the
amnesty proclamation, such, for example, as civil or
diplomatic officers of the late confederate government and
all of the seceding states; United States judges, members
of Congress and commissioned officers of the United States
Army and Navy who left their posts to aid the rebellion;
officers in the Confederate military forces above the rank
of colonel in the Army and lieutenant in the Navy; all who
resigned commissions in the Army or Navy of the United
States to assist the rebellion; and all officers of the
military forces of the Confederacy who had been educated at
the military or naval academy of the United States, etc.,
etc.
(3) 15 Stat. 707 (1968).
(4) Resolution set forth in proclamation of Secretary of State,
15 Stat. 709 (1868). See also U.S.C.A., Amends. 1 to 5,
Constitution, p. 11.
(5) 15 Stat. 708 (1868).
(6) In the case of Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 42 S.Ct. 217,
66 L. Ed. 505, the question was before the Supreme Court as
to whether or not the Nineteenth Amendment had been ratified
pursuant to the Constitution. In the last paragraph of the
decision the Supreme Court said:" * * * As the legislatures
of Tennessee and of West Virginia had power to adopt the
resolutions of ratification, official notice to the
Ninth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice: Page 6 of
8
Secretary, duly authenticated, that they had done so, was
conclusive upon him, and, being certified to by his
proclamation, is conclusive upon the courts. * * *"
(7) 65 Stat. 710, Sec. 106b (1951), designates the Administrator
of General Services Administration as the one whose duty it
is to certify that an amendment has been ratified.
(8) For a more detailed account of how the Fourteenth Amendment
was forced upon the Nation, see articles in 11 S.C.L.Q. 484
and 28 Tul. Rev. 22.
# # #
INCORPORATION
Because the issues discussed in said excerpt are very
similar to the issues expected to arise in the instant case,
particularly the failed ratification of the so-called 14th
amendment, Defendant hereby incorporates by reference all facts
and laws as cited therein, as if the same were set forth fully
herein.
VERIFICATION
I, Vance E. Knudson, Sui Juris, hereby verify, under penalty of
perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without
(outside) the "United States", that the attached documents are
true and correct copies of the originals, to the best of My
current information, knowledge, and belief, so help Me God,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
Dated: ______________________________
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Vance Knudson
_____________________________________
Vance E. Knudson, Sui Juris
Citizen of Nebraska state
(expressly not a citizen of the United States)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Ninth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice: Page 7 of
8
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Vance E. Knudson, Sui Juris, hereby certify, under penalty of
perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without
the "United States," that I am at least 18 years of age, a
Citizen of one of the United States of America, and that I
personally served the following document(s):
NINTH NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR
MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE:
Rule 201(d), Federal Rules of Evidence;
Full Faith and Credit Clause
by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first
class United States Mail, with postage prepaid and properly
addressed to the following:
SALLY R. JOHNSON
Office of U.S. Attorney
487 Federal Building
100 Centennial Mall North
Lincoln [zip code exempt]
NEBRASKA STATE
ROBERT D. METCALFE
Trial Attorney, Tax Division
U.S. Department of Justice
c/o POB 7238, Ben Franklin Station
Washington [zip code exempt]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Dated: __________________________________
/s/ Vance Knudson
__________________________________________
Vance E. Knudson, Sui Juris
Citizen of Nebraska state
(expressly not a citizen of the United States)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
[See USPS Publication #221 for addressing instructions.]
Ninth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice: Page 8 of
8
# # #